Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 23:22:23 GMT -5
Here's the most famous Missing Persons Case in my area, maybe top 2 in the country. Nicole Morin, 1985.
It's your basic Locked Door Mystery but in this case it's a Locked Elevator Door. Okay maybe not locked but close to it.
The interesting thing is that the police issued two video reenactments, on in 1985 and one in 2015 and they are very different. Web sleuths on Unsolvedcanada knew there was something going as they discovered some possible discrepancies in the timelines and situations.
Here are the two videos:
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Feb 9, 2018 0:50:38 GMT -5
I've read about that case. I've always believed that she was nabbed by some pervert when the elevator opened on the floor where he lived. Some reports say that she never got on the elevator, which would mean that she was grabbed on the 20th floor, but I don't think that's reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:25:10 GMT -5
Yes, I thought it was someone in the apartment too. I even published a complete list online of all the names of the residents.
There was only one suspect mentioned on the forums. Someone who owned a graphics company who was suspected and said suspicious things like "you have no body" and someone on the forums took a profiling course with an officer instructor who told the class about him.
I like the "artist" angle but I'm not too sure. Did you see the major discrepancy in the two versions? It changes everything.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Feb 10, 2018 2:03:31 GMT -5
I've never heard of this case. Is there a book about it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 20:08:19 GMT -5
No. There's not a book unfortunately and there should be. It just makes you wonder.
One True Crime author said he was going to write about it in his next book but it only turned out to be a book about several unsolved Canadian cases with a small chapter on Nicole and he added nothing new.
A journalist wrote another book with about 200 different unsolved cases and he got his cases mixed up. I'm sure he got Nicole Morin mixed up with Marianne Schuette. He said the police found Nicole's shoes on the elevator which isn't true unless police are really keeping secrets. Why would they change to the new scenario if that is the case.
As you can see, only in the first reenactment is the mystery an actual "closed door" mystery. Which would mean she was abducted by someone getting on who just suddenly decided to grab her. Or someone staking out the elevator on his floor for that purpose, maybe even the stairs and running down ahead of the elevator. How likely is that?
Police turned the apartment over 4 times, breaking into locked rooms and searching everywhere for her or a crime scene. They found nothing.
Mother had a daycare. Father, a delivery man. Separated.....
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 10, 2018 21:50:50 GMT -5
I agree with Catherine. I think that somebody was getting on the elevator on a floor below where she lived and when the door opened, he seized the opportunity and grabbed her. Either that, or he somehow talked her into going to his apartment. There were hours between when she disappeared and when the police were called, so the man would have had hours to get the girl or her body out of the building without anybody noticing. People in big cities don't notice what other people are doing like they do in the mountains where I live, where everybody knows everybody and folks are nosy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 1:13:59 GMT -5
That's the obvious scenario if she didn't make it outside. The first scenario makes it look like she never made it to the lobby. The second makes it more than possible. A witness says she made it to the lobby. Crime writer Max Haines who narrates the first video gave her credit. Police didn't. Insiders online says she was a woman who lived on the 17th floor, rode the elevator with her down to the lobby and was the last to see her. www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=99.120Did she have the wrong day or did she come down the first time Nicole went down, to pick up the mail? Where would he hide her when it's quite hard to hide a body this long? Private property?
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Feb 12, 2018 17:42:58 GMT -5
That's the obvious scenario if she didn't make it outside. The first scenario makes it look like she never made it to the lobby. The second makes it more than possible. A witness says she made it to the lobby. Crime writer Max Haines who narrates the first video gave her credit. Police didn't. Insiders online says she was a woman who lived on the 17th floor, rode the elevator with her down to the lobby and was the last to see her. www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=99.120Did she have the wrong day or did she come down the first time Nicole went down, to pick up the mail? My question is why this alleged predator picked some girl who just arrived in Toronto two years earlier in a case like no other. It could have been anyone who was a long-time resident. Why a newcomer? Newcomer + New Crime = What? And what about the coincidence that Guy Paul Morin was famously wrongfully arrested in the disappearance of a young girl in April just outside Toronto and then someone named Morin disappears. Where would he hide her when it's quite hard to hide a body this long? Private property? People are often mistaken about what they see. That's why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. If she had made it to the lobby, why didn't the girl who was waiting for her see her?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 23:24:32 GMT -5
Why didn’t her friend see her come down?
Did you watch the second version? Where’s the friend?
Online sleuths first discovered the friend lived in the same apartment. On the 7th floor. The first scenario was bogus. The second version confirms that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 13, 2018 17:08:20 GMT -5
Why didn’t her friend see her come down? Did you watch the second version? Where’s the friend? Online sleuths first discovered the friend lived in the same apartment. On the 7th floor. The first scenario was bogus. The second version confirms that.
So are you saying that the first version or the second version is wrong? Did she make it to the lobby? Or was she snatched before she got to the lobby?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:26:47 GMT -5
The Second Version has to be the correct one. There was no friend buzzing up and buzzing in. She lived on the 7th floor. They agreed to go swimming at 11 and meet up in the lobby. No reason to be buzzed in twice. The mother had a daycare. Didn't need to buzz her in while Nicole was there either.
Can you see why I think the police decided to make it look like she buzzed up twice, thereby ruining the whole reenactment and leading everyone to false conclusions.
That means she could have made it to the lobby and one witness says she did. I don't normally believe witnesses. It just fits the case with the possible crime scene somewhere else. A cryptic note was found in Nicole's notebook which said, "I'm going to disappear."
If she got to the lobby as I believe, then she would have to have walked out to a different rendezvous, and the meetup with the friend in the lobby and going swimming set up as a ruse.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Feb 13, 2018 19:20:49 GMT -5
The Second Version has to be the correct one. There was no friend buzzing up and buzzing in. She lived on the 7th floor. They agreed to go swimming at 11 and meet up in the lobby. No reason to be buzzed in twice. The mother had a daycare. Didn't need to buzz her in while Nicole was there either. Can you see why I think the police decided to make it look like she buzzed up twice, thereby ruining the whole reenactment and leading everyone to false conclusions. That means she could have made it to the lobby and one witness says she did. I don't normally believe witnesses. It just fits the case with the possible crime scene somewhere else. A cryptic note was found in Nicole's notebook which said, "I'm going to disappear." If she got to the lobby as I believe, then she would have to have walked out to a different rendezvous, and the meetup with the friend in the lobby and going swimming set up as a ruse. Just because the friend lived in the building and didn't have to buzz Nicole's apartment doesn't mean the second version is right. Both could be wrong.
If the woman who said that she rode down on the elevator with Nicole didn't know her well, she could have ridden down with some other kid. At the age of 8, girls all look pretty much alike except for their size and hair color.
If Nicole had been 18 instead of 8, then there's a possibility that she could have created a ruse to confuse investigators, but an 8-year-old doesn't think like that. As for writing "I am going to disappear" in her notebook, she could have been reading "Alice in Wonderland" and fantasized about walking through the looking glass. Or she could have heard a story about a kid disappearing. What did she write before and after this phrase?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 19:36:18 GMT -5
She wrote nothing before of after "I'm going to disappear." Maybe I should sit out and let people think about some more. But I will say I think the police were bent on containing the location of the "crime scene" to somewhere in the apartment. If she walked out the door, then they wouldn't know where to concentrate their efforts. As it was, they turned the whole apartment over 4 times. Looked like they were doing something....Exerting authority....Then 30 years later, they realized they may have messed up the scenario and put out a new reenactment with no friend at the bottom of the elevator waiting and containing the situation. No one questioned them on it. I'm the only one who thought it amiss. I guess everyone still thinks the friend Jennifer could have gotten to the bottom first. No way to know that, is there? If she walked out, that leaves only one or two linked scenarios related to the on-going court battles over child support. www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=99.0
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Feb 13, 2018 20:22:51 GMT -5
The Second Version has to be the correct one. There was no friend buzzing up and buzzing in. She lived on the 7th floor. They agreed to go swimming at 11 and meet up in the lobby. No reason to be buzzed in twice. The mother had a daycare. Didn't need to buzz her in while Nicole was there either. Can you see why I think the police decided to make it look like she buzzed up twice, thereby ruining the whole reenactment and leading everyone to false conclusions. That means she could have made it to the lobby and one witness says she did. I don't normally believe witnesses. It just fits the case with the possible crime scene somewhere else. A cryptic note was found in Nicole's notebook which said, "I'm going to disappear." If she got to the lobby as I believe, then she would have to have walked out to a different rendezvous, and the meetup with the friend in the lobby and going swimming set up as a ruse. I just looked up where this happened. Those apartments are still there, but they are condos now, and they actually consist of two huge buildings that are totally separated. Isn't it possible that the friend lived on the 7th floor of the other building, which would mean that she would have had to ring the buzzer to get into the building where Nicole lived?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 0:39:13 GMT -5
I double checked at the city archives with the old city directories. She was in the same building.
The only thing I could think of was that she was staying with someone else during the day in the other building. I think she lived in the same building and the cops didn't want to say. And they jumped to conclusion that she was there first with no proof. I know they made a new reenactment partly because the girl in the first one was too old, at least 12 or 13 instead of 8. But why leave out the entire scenario and not mention why especially after online forums discussed the question of why she was arriving at the building's front door and buzzing in when she lived there?
|
|